Well... first of all Aaron Burr was not acting alone, and may easily have held elections to declare secession "in the name of" whatever "citizens" then lived in the United States territory of Louisiana.
Second, those "millions" you refer to were led by a small group of Deep South Fire Eaters, which have now been defined and listed for you, above.
Fire Eaters both engineered the Democrat party split at the 1860 convention in Charleston, and then pushed for secession when their now split Democrats lost to Abraham Lincoln's Black Republicans.
DiogenesLamp: "The Refusal of states to return escaped slaves is a breach of this clause in the constitution.
The efforts of the Government to ban slavery in future states would also be regarded in this light."
But state responsibilities for capturing and returning Fugitive Slaves were eliminated by the Compromise of 1850 Law, which transferred the job from states to Federal Government.
That means your complaint is bogus regarding the states, though potentially valid in the sense, if Federal Government did not do enough to suppress Northern states-rights to abolish slavery within their own territories.
But even that much is bogus to the max, since those Deep South states which complained most loudly about it, and then declared their secession allegedly from it: those states suffered least from it.
Yes, Deep South states, despite protestations, did not suffer serious Fugitive Slave problems, precisely because they were, after all, Deep South.
To pick an example: a slave wishing to runaway from Georgia had to escape slave-catchers not only in his own state, but in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland before he/she could hope to see freedom in Pennsylvania or states further north.
The result was, all through the 1850s, Deep South slave populations grew rapidly.
By contrast, slaves in Maryland or Kentucky could relatively easily run to freedom in, say, New Jersey or Ohio.
Therefore, Deep South Fire Eater complaints about non-enforcement of Fugitive Slave laws cannot have been serious, must only have been further propaganda, intended to inflame an otherwise Unionist Southern constituency.
The Constitution is not amended by "compromise". It is amended by a clearly enumerated process. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment will repeal that clause in Article IV.
Till that is done, states are obligated to do what the constitution says, or am I mistaken about this?
You see, if you argue that states don't have to do what the constitution says, I fear there goes most of your larger argument.